It depends. There are riots in England currently because some racists don’t want anymore immigration. I’m pretty sure you can easily have a very heated debate with these guys. You may talk with a jew about Israel these days too.

If you avoid hit topic with the wrong person, you won’t find strong opinions. But Internet bring people together, especially when they want to fight eachother.

The title mention god with a capital G, which means it’s the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.

What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.

During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.

Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.

In the middle of this are the liberals who don’t care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that’s what the church doesn’t let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It’s against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?

It’s not science that made religion recess. It’s bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn’t go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It’s a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.

Quit eating and tell us about it I guess…

Everything can be. But for the largest majority of people, eating is normal, eventhough it can seem to have some aspects of an addiction.

And the most important part here is that even if you somehow get addicted to food, you cannot simply stop eating. Because you need to eat for your survival. It’s a biological need.

That’s the point of the example : showing that something you can’t stop doing is not necessarily a bad thing. The details are very important when it comes to addiction.

And video games are unfortunately victim of propaganda when it comes to their dangers.

An addiction is defined by two things : first, it has negative effects on your life. Second, trying to stop it makes you miserable.

Food for example is not an addiction, it’s a biological need. The need for socialisation is another one.

Video games can be an addiction. But I’d argue that they’re usually not, they usually a coping mechanism. When they are, the problem is elsewhere, and the video games are helping you to survive through the problem.

I think you’re thinking backward. Internet is what it is because a single protocole unified it. Without it, you’d have island working with only one browser each, some would eventually die and with them large parts of Internet would disappear.

Internet works on unified protocoles. Everything that challenged this model is bound to fail. That’s why javascript is so successful eventhough it’s so shitty as a language.

Evolution can only be iterative.

If you consider Europe like any other country, then no matter. But what would happen if US law were to target lemmy? What if EU was to censor lemmy and forbid any company to use it?

If you want lemmy to be yet another forgotten free software project you can continue line this.

Moor law is dead for a few years now. It’s a fact. It doesn’t mean performances stoped increasing. But they don’t follow the old law. That’s why the industry is shifting to distributed networking.

None of those are major breakthrough. They’re more computing power. It’s still the same technology.

Today llm are the prime candidate for a breakthrough. They still have to prove themselves though, to prove that they’re not just a fancy expensive useless toy like the blockchain.

Risc-v is not meant to be a breakthrough. It’s an evolution.

Internet was a breakthrough. The invention of the mouse was a breakthrough.

Increase in power or in disk space, new languages or os, none of those are breakthroughs. None of those changed how computer programs were made or used.

The smartphone is a significant thing. Wi-Fi is not really important though, because you don’t do anything more with WiFi than you can do with ethernet. The smartphone though and its network, that is a big thing.

There is a lot of fake progress. In computer technology some things were refined, but the only true technological novelty these last 20 years was the containerization. And maybe AI. Internet was the previous jump, but it’s not really a computer technology, and it affect much, much more than that.

And Moor law has already ended some years ago.

You grasp what’s not there, and both position and velocity cannot be know at the same time. How do you affect something when you don’t know where it is exactly?

If the hypothesis for telekinesis is that you apply force to an object, quantum mechanic is mostly out of reach as well, for the same reason. You need to know where it is.

It’s also hard to admit that telekinesis allows you to move gazeous or even liquid objects. And usually you don’t even grasp a part of a whole object, which solidify the hypothesis of the inability to grasp particuls themselves as discrete items.

Finally, you make the hypothesis that there is no limit to the number of objects you can affect at once.

Quantum physics forbid any of these perks. You’ll be limited to macroscopic matter manipulation.

We need to shit down billionaires planes indeed. But we also need to remove all cars that produce co2. Their emissions are significant. It means we won’t survive if we don’t remove them.

The problem you’re touching is the one of whom will pay the price of the transition. And indeed it’d be better if rich people were paying.

In case you missed it, co2 is causing global warming, which has the ability to extinct mankind in the future. EV don’t produce any co2. Some idiots will talk about indirect emissions, but the point is moot. You don’t remove indirect emissions by removing EV, you remove them by cleaning power grid and logistic lines.

EV are a necessity on a short term basis. Developing public transports and alternative to cars are also a necessity.

I just thought of a better word for their ideology: techno-feudalism. They are not optimist or humanist, they crave for power and controle.

What I hate the most is that they are literally stealing science, technology and progress to enforce their techno-feudalism.

That’s unfortunate. I consider myself a technooptimist, but I am anything but a believer of liberalism or capitalism.

You are completely missing the point. The problem is that you are considering employees to be the bad ones, and thus you are selecting them.

You are describing here someone who will get wrong and isn’t able to work properly. If this is the kind of person you are looking to hire, then good for you, and your hiring process is perfect. But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones. Many people will also end up acting like bad employees because that’s how you consider them, so why should they bother?

This the problem with modern management and hr: it is hostile to employees.